Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is, again, to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his previous answers in which he said again and again that there was no special or preferential deal with the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking. Will he inform the House that if it is true there was no special or preferential deal, why did they leave the vessel?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Leader of the Opposition would be aware, dealing with each vessel involves particular circumstances. I simply draw his attention, for example, to those confronted by the Indonesian government in dealing with those currently on the boat at Merak. What are the circumstances there? One, the vessel was picked up in Indonesian waters. Two, as a result of it being picked up in Indonesian waters it was taken to Indonesia and, as a result, it is being processed under Indonesian law. That is what has occurred with the vessel at Merak.

It was picked up in the Indonesian search and rescue zone as a consequence of contact with the Indonesian search and rescue authorities. An Australian vessel was asked to intervene. I assume those opposite are not suggesting that we should in any way ignore a request for support under those circumstances, though from time to time I have heard eerie silences on the part of those opposite on this question and, furthermore, those opposite have not provided any simple answer to this question. Having answered an international search and rescue call, where should the individual vessel then be taken—to Indonesia or to Australia? We, responding to the arrangements that we had made with the Indonesians, took it to Indonesia and that is why the circumstances which govern its handling now are the product of Australian processes, Indonesian processes and international processes, unlike the vessel which is currently offshore at Merak.

I simply go back, therefore, to the honourable gentleman’s question, which goes to this vessel and other vessels in the circumstances which pertain. I go again to the advice provided by the secretary to the immigration department who, much to his discomfort and the discomfort of all those opposite, has said that the Indonesian government and the Australian government have agreed to a set of arrangements regarding the time frames for the processing of the group in Indonesia, consistent with the international practices and resettlement procedures. That is his advice. That is how we are applying it. The individual physical circumstances concerning the interdiction of a vessel have to be considered, depending on where it is located in international waters; search and rescue obviously are different and therefore, under the circumstances—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would suggest to those opposite, once again, that they seem to be remarkably robust on this question that when it comes to answering a search and rescue call you should not under any circumstances adhere to the normal processes which apply to the Indonesians and apply to others—which are that you take it to the nearest port with the concurrence of the local authorities. That is what occurred in these circumstances. Yet I note, again, in his third question today on this matter, the Leader of the Opposition has refused to back in his accusation that the Prime Minister of the country—me—misled parliament yesterday on the question of my own knowledge of the document which was released by the immigration section of our embassy in Jakarta.

If the member for Wentworth is going to stand to his feet as he did yesterday and accuse the Prime Minister of the country of misleading the parliament, you would hope that even this Leader of the Opposition—who is so experienced in these matters, given the events of the middle of this year—would have one shred of evidence upon which to base that accusation. But, so far, not one shred of evidence has he advanced in support of his accusation that I misled the parliament yesterday concerning knowledge or authorisation of that particular document. That is the accusation he made. He said, ‘There is no question about it, whatsoever.’

The government’s policy on border protection is consistent. We are applying it to a difficult set of circumstances around the world. I would suggest that those opposite, instead of simply seeking to cultivate the politics of fear on this question, engage in a real policy debate about this. What is your alternative policy on immigration? I have not heard it so far, other than to bring back the temporary protection visas, it seems, which resulted in 100 boats coming here with 10,000 asylum seekers in the two years following that. That is the one addition we have had to the policy. And, secondly, when asked how would you handle the circumstances which govern the particular interdiction of the vessel which the Minister for Foreign Affairs was speaking of yesterday, they say, ‘That is a question for the government, not for us.’ So they have no policy in terms of the alternative for the future and no alternative approach in terms of the operational circumstances which pertain to this vessel. As the secretary of the immigration department said yesterday, ‘We are adhering to processes in this group in Indonesia, which are consistent with international practice and resettlement procedures.’ I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition actually read carefully that letter and reflect on its content before he makes a further accusation, which is baseless, concerning myself and misleads the parliament—as he did, without foundation, yesterday.